Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by implying a read operation and listing output fields. However, it does not disclose limitations, pagination, rate limits, or whether the search is exact or partial. Behaviorally adequate but not transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the action. However, it omits useful details that could be included without verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as whether multiple parameters are combined with AND/OR, the format of responses, or any default behavior. The minimal information leaves the agent with incomplete understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning to the parameters. The listed output fields provide some context for what the search returns, but this is separate from parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search FEC lobbying disclosure records' with specific verb and resource. It lists key fields (lobbyists, clients, amounts, issues lobbied), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'federal_contracts' or 'federal_spending'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextual direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.